UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-4013

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
SHAQUILA MONTEZ BUMPASS,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greensboro.
William L. Osteen,
Jr., Chief District Judge. (1:13-cr-00102-WO-1)

Submitted:

July 29, 2014

Decided:

July 31, 2014

Before NIEMEYER, WYNN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Jonathan Leonard, Winston-Salem, North Carolina, for Appellant.

Kyle David Pousson, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY,
Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:
Shaquila Montez Bumpass appeals the 147-month sentence
imposed

by

the

district

court

following

her

guilty

plea

to

conspiracy to distribute 500 grams or more of cocaine and 28

grams or more of cocaine base, in violation of 21 U.S.C. 846
(2012), and possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug
trafficking
(2012).

crime,

in

violation

of

18

U.S.C.

924(c)(1)(A)

In accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738

(1967), Bumpass counsel has filed a brief certifying that there

are no meritorious grounds for appeal but questioning whether
Bumpass
informed

sentence
of

her

is

substantively

right

supplemental brief.

to

do

so,

reasonable.

Bumpass

has

Although
not

filed

We affirm.

We review Bumpass sentence for reasonableness, using

an abuse-of-discretion standard.
U.S.

38,

procedural

51

(2007).

We

error[s],

must

including

Gall v. United States, 552

first

review

improperly

for

significant

calculating[]

the

Guidelines range, . . . failing to consider the [18 U.S.C.]

3553(a)

[(2012)]

factors,

selecting

sentence

based

on

clearly erroneous facts, or failing to adequately explain the

chosen sentence.

Gall, 552 U.S. at 51; United States v. Evans,

526 F.3d 155, 161 (4th Cir. 2008).

sentence

is

procedurally

substantive reasonableness.

Only if we conclude that the

reasonable

may

we

consider

its

United States v. Carter, 564 F.3d

2

325,

328

(4th

Cir.

2009).

Here,

the

record

reveals

no

procedural or substantive error in Bumpass sentencing.

In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire
record and have found no meritorious grounds for appeal.
therefore

affirm

the

district

courts

judgment.

This

We
court

requires that counsel inform Bumpass, in writing, of her right

to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further
review.

If

Bumpass

requests

counsel

believes

that

counsel

may

in

move

representation.

such
this

that
a

petition

petition

court

for

be

would

leave

to

be

filed,

but

frivolous,

withdraw

from

Counsels motion must state that a copy thereof

was served on Bumpass.

We dispense with oral argument because

the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the

materials

before

this

court

and

argument

would

not

aid

the

decisional process.

AFFIRMED